By Judie Brown
A recent editorial in The Hill contains the following about the personhood of the preborn baby: “Personhood advocates are the hard-core, no-compromises wing of the anti-abortion movement, insisting that fertilized eggs deserve full legal and constitutional rights from the moment of conception. A defining trait is their opposition to any exceptions for rape or incest in laws banning abortion.”
Relying on a separate column written some years ago, the writer is alerting his readers to what he perceives as a problem: pro-lifers with the truth in the arsenal of tools they use to expose the wickedness of abortion.
In both instances, these writers are not only foolish, but they are grasping at political rhetoric instead of conducting honest research to determine what one means when she teaches that the preborn child is a person. And since wise guys think they know it all, I rest my case. We are not name calling, we are exposing a sad condition that is rampant in mainstream media.
Human personhood is not a political opinion, it is a proven philosophical fact based on evidence that can be studied, if only one has the courage to do so. Attorney Gualberto Garcia Jones accurately writes:
To acknowledge the personhood of a human being is to recognize that human being as a brother or sister, a son or daughter, and a bearer of God-given inalienable rights and the equal protection of the law. Personhood is the right to have rights. On the other hand, to deny a human being’s personhood is to cast them out of the human family, to create a second class of human beings, and to deny them the standing before and equal protection of the law.
This is not a one-off point of view, it is an accurate assessment of the reasons why pro-life people underscore the humanity of our fellow human beings by pointing out that they are persons, not objects to discard.
So, when editorial writers use language designed to obscure or contradict science and philosophy, we imagine that they are fearful of playing on a fair field. This is so because a balanced set of facts enables readers to derive their own opinions. Pitting propaganda against hard evidence would not end well for the wise guys, and that is my point.
To be fair, though, this sort of hype has been ongoing for more than half a century. We can harken back to the days when television talk shows like Oprah and Phil had both sides of a subject on stage to debate. I remember being told before such appearances, “You cannot use the pictures!” In other words, the producers were saying, “We do not want our audience to see what an aborted baby looks like!”
Today such shows are passe, but the deception has taken on new forms and is equally as vile.
A simple sonogram image sends chills down the spines of those in media who refuse to acknowledge the reality of who exists within her mother from the very beginning of her life. While we will not dabble in mind reading, we will say unequivocally that if anyone in any position of influence can look a baby in the eye and tell her that she isn’t a miracle, that person has problems larger than I can comprehend.
That baby did not suddenly come into being at birth. She spent nine months, in most cases, preparing for her debut. How is that not a miracle? How is she not a person? Her mom is a person, her dad is a person, and so is she. The preborn baby is a human being, pure and simple.
Perhaps the wise guys need a bit of common sense!